advertisement
RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

What My Broken Collar Bone Taught Me About Our Broken Health-Care System

by Melanie Weldon-Soiset 07-16-2009

I was in a car wreck in 2002.  After a drunk driver hit the car in which I was a passenger, I found myself with fractured ribs and a broken right clavicle.  I had two surgeries (both unsuccessful) to heal my collar bone, and I had trouble sleeping for months afterwards.  Even today I cannot sleep on my right side or lift very heavy objects, and I fight anxiety if another car comes anywhere near me while I am making a left turn.

I had to pay $2,500 out of pocket for the ambulance ride, emergency room, surgeries, and physical therapy visits.  Yet I am fortunate that I was covered by my family’s health insurance.  In the end, the medical bills totaled over $25,000.

I shudder to remember the years of bureaucratic red tape my family and I endured because of this wreck.  We made multiple calls and sent many letters to correct faulty billing procedures and to ensure that the insurance company would actually pay for the care I needed.

I am thankful that I am alive and not bankrupt because of a chance collision, yet God has created us for more than being merely “alive and not bankrupt.”  The Lord has created us for freedom to live in loving community that encourages supportive relationships.  The kingdom of God promises blessings so much deeper than what our current health-care system leaves us:  46 million people without insurance, growing numbers of bankruptcies due to rising medical costs, and 18,000 unnecessary deaths each year.

As Congress tackles the challenge of health-care reform in the United States, Christians have the opportunity to hold our legislators accountable to those whose voices have been neglected for so long.  By urging quality health care that is accessible and affordable for all, the church affirms that God desires us healed and whole.

My accident taught me that our current system encourages medical providers to see patients as commodities, and insurance companies to withhold or delay coverage in order to maximize their profits.  I have hope that we can seek a better way so that all of those involved in the health-care system are freed to seek the common good.   That is why I am working with Sojourners and others in the faith community to advocate for more transparent and inclusive health-care reform.

Join our efforts by signing our Health-Care Creed, and a copy will be sent to your member of Congress, letting them know you want legislation that reflects God’s concern for the health of everyone.

Melanie Weldon-Soiset is a Beatitudes Society fellow at Sojourners.

To learn more about health-care reform, click here to visit Sojourners’ Health-Care Resources Web page.

Categories: Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • nuclearferret
    My experience with Medicaid bureaucracy was this: My wife had a miscarriage, while we had no insurance. The hospital, recognizing their opportunity to exploit an economic entity with far less power than they, billed us several thousands of dollars more than insurance, private or government would pay. Meanwhile, a Medicaid worker came by my work and I mentioned my situation. He asked a few basic questions, the main one being about the level of assets we had. After I told him, he commented that it was too bad I had $400 too much in assets or the government would pay for all of it. I responded that I guess I was a sucker--I could have hosted a kegger for my neighbors and friends and been the life of the party and saved about $4K. "No, that isn't what I said," he responded. Actually, it was exactly what he said.

    Health care and the legal system constructed around medical malpractice lawsuits needs to be reformed, but replacing private insurers with government does not assure the common good; it ensures that, as always, the players who pay will be heard more clearly than those who do not pay. It also makes the safety net folks, i.e., the government, the sole arbiter of what kind of care people get, rather than have government as a potential court of appeal against the practices of private sector actors.
  • Ngchen
    I agree with nuclearferret that a government-run system would not be inherently better than the current mess we have. That being said, with regard to the broken collarbone that the original poster mentioned, reminds me of an article I read elsewhere on health-care costs. Basically, there was the question of what's the "best" treatment for such an injury. That author has a simple break; he could have undergone surgery for it and had hardware implanted, or he could have gotten a sling. The surgery would probably have given him a straight collarbone again, at the cost of thousands of dollars + risks from surgery + longer recuperation time. The sling (cost ~ $10 if that) would give him a crooked collarbone, but w/o the other costs. He opted for the sling.

    In that case, was the sling "best?" How do we define "best?" One thing I find odd about the current debates on health-care reform is that there is little talk about ideas to actually cut costs. All I hear is "who pays?" Not reigning in costs is not going to work; it's poor stewardship, and it also will end up bankrupting the country.
  • melaniews
    You do have a good point regarding the costs and rationing of health care. The New York Times ran an excellent article a few days ago detailing the issues surrounding rationing. We already do ration health care, in reality, when the uninsured have to wait for hours in an emergency room and receive sub-par care compared to the insured. It's not a question of whether or not to ration, but rather how we ration.

    Regarding my personal story: I am fortunate that I was covered by a relatively "good" insurance policy, and because of that, I can't help but wonder if my medical providers saw an opportunity to push an expensive procedure on me in order to maximize their profits. Given that neither surgery worked to fix my collar bone, I wonder now whether they were worth it. At the time, I naively trusted my doctors and assumed whatever advice they gave must be for my best interests. I have learned now the value of getting second opinions and doing my own research, but ideally, shouldn't we be able to trust our doctors? Shouldn't their goals be aligned with those of their patients: to bring the most healing possible to all?

    If any reformed health care system (regardless if it is public or private) emphasized comparative effectiveness procedures, and the doctor cared more about healing than profits, I could have had my options honestly explained to me. My post is not concerned as much with who pays for health care (in reality, we are already paying way too much for ineffective treatments), but rather that our scarce resources be used in the wisest possible way to increase the health of all. Doctors should be rewarded for effective treatment, not running up insurance bills.
  • Eric77
    My post is not concerned as much with who pays for health care (in reality, we are already paying way too much for ineffective treatments), but rather that our scarce resources be used in the wisest possible way to increase the health of all.

    This is pretty key, because it gets to the problem of the current system. The only entity who is concerned about costs in the current system is the insurance company - not the patient and not the doctor. In most other transactions, the buyer (patient) weighs costs and benefits and often shops around and gets second opinions. Under the current system, the buyer isn't paying so why shop around? Why get that second opinion? And the doctor might have some sympathy for the patient if he or she was paying, but it's some nameless insurance company, why not opt for the best, most expensive treatment option - patient and doctor both win.

    The problem with the government running everything is that in that scenario the doctor and patient aren't in control either. It's some medical board or government bureaucracy that establishes what the government is willing to pay for and how much and what it's not (or it pays for everything and the country goes even deeper into dept). If this medical board decides that they won't pay for your treatment, then you either have to pay out of pocket or go to another country. Even if you opt for the out of pocket, there's often a long wait for service because of rationing. But the main point is, the person who should be worrying about cost control, the buyer, has no incentive to control costs. That's one of the main reasons costs are so high under the current system (and why putting the government in charge is not the best solution either - we've seen how good it is at controlling costs!).
  • geekFarmer
    As is the case with the financial system, the top management at publicly traded companies are required by law to care first and foremost about their fiduciary responsibility to their share holders.
    This means that are insurance companies are supposed to put profit ahead of quality of service, unless we can make it the case that a lack of quality service is the biggest impact on profitability.
  • Bungarra
    Question re comments by Geekfarmer - if financial gain trumps human care - could this be considered to be worse thatn slavery where every human has a financial worth and if care exceeds their value, that need will be ignored? What are the value systems being used and have they been properly debated? At least slaves have to be looked after if they were to be fit to work....

    I am not sure that the US at > $6,500 per head is getting good value for health care where Japan, Australia and others can have a longer lived population for less than half that spend on health care.

    The initial reason for universal health care in the UK was during WW1 where the quality of recruits to the army was too poor for service. The general health of the nation was not good enough to defend itself. Time for some very critical triple bottom line analysis.
  • mscynthia
    Between the financial crisis, the mortgage crisis and the cost of health care maybe Hilary wasn't that far off the mark when she suggested we were living on a Pantation. There are days when I wonder what it is really like to be an indentured servant.
  • mtrhill
    I'm thinking with all the problems we have with our heathcare system, like high cost , bad doctors, poor results from surgeries and so on, the uninsured are probably better off. I have worked in heathcare for 25 years and even though it has its problems I have seen a lot of wonderful care and happy families. Why do we need to blow it up and start over? Maybe if we eliminated the high cost of mal practice insurance and litigation everyone could be covered.
  • mscynthia
    When you charge people an arm and a leg for their health care they are going to feel entitled to sue you.
  • mscynthia
    See what Bill Moyers has put together on Health Care.
    Very useful links

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/prof...
  • mtrhill
    Entitled. One of the key words in our society. Someone steals my car, am I entitled to recieve a new one? My service and food at the restaurant is not worth the amount charged, should my meal be free? Also , if we didn't have to run a ton of tests on every patient to avoid missing something and being sued we probably wouldn't have to charge an arm and a leg.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertisement
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008